The proof of mass vector.
in [Math]
|
Prev: infinity ...
Next: The set of All sets
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Apr 2007 23:08 Ka-In Yen wrote: > On Apr 23, 9:41 pm, Bob Kolker <nowh...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> Ka-In Yen wrote: >> >>> Vector division can help we to calculate the components >>> of vector. For example, we put a brick on a sloping surface. >>> The mass of the brick is M, and the contacting area between >>> the brick and the sloping surface is A. Then we have >>> F=Mg (where g is the acceleration due to gravity.) >>> pressure p= F/A = |F|cos(theta)/|A| >> Which is a scalar, not a vector. > > Dear Bob Kolker, > > Thank you for your comment. Pressure(p) is a scalar. > Force and area are vectors. > As I have shown you before, Ka-In Yen, area is not a vector quantity.
From: Jeckyl on 23 Apr 2007 23:43 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message news:BweXh.12286$n_.8438(a)attbi_s21... > Ka-In Yen wrote: >> On Apr 23, 9:41 pm, Bob Kolker <nowh...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>> Ka-In Yen wrote: >>> >>>> Vector division can help we to calculate the components >>>> of vector. For example, we put a brick on a sloping surface. >>>> The mass of the brick is M, and the contacting area between >>>> the brick and the sloping surface is A. Then we have >>>> F=Mg (where g is the acceleration due to gravity.) >>>> pressure p= F/A = |F|cos(theta)/|A| >>> Which is a scalar, not a vector. >> >> Dear Bob Kolker, >> >> Thank you for your comment. Pressure(p) is a scalar. >> Force and area are vectors. >> > > As I have shown you before, Ka-In Yen, area is not a vector quantity. Not that I've been following the thread, but maybe what is being referred to is the normal vector for the planar surface?
From: Sam Wormley on 24 Apr 2007 00:14 Jeckyl wrote: > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message > news:BweXh.12286$n_.8438(a)attbi_s21... >> Ka-In Yen wrote: >>> On Apr 23, 9:41 pm, Bob Kolker <nowh...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> Ka-In Yen wrote: >>>> >>>>> Vector division can help we to calculate the components >>>>> of vector. For example, we put a brick on a sloping surface. >>>>> The mass of the brick is M, and the contacting area between >>>>> the brick and the sloping surface is A. Then we have >>>>> F=Mg (where g is the acceleration due to gravity.) >>>>> pressure p= F/A = |F|cos(theta)/|A| >>>> Which is a scalar, not a vector. >>> Dear Bob Kolker, >>> >>> Thank you for your comment. Pressure(p) is a scalar. >>> Force and area are vectors. >>> >> As I have shown you before, Ka-In Yen, area is not a vector quantity. > > Not that I've been following the thread, but maybe what is being referred to > is the normal vector for the planar surface? > > Actually, not!
From: Denis Feldmann on 24 Apr 2007 00:14 Bob Kolker a �crit : > Ka-In Yen wrote: >> >> Hamilton had discovered vector division in 1843. > > Which product are you using. The cross product (in which case there is > no division) or the dot product (in which case there is no division). Maybe he means the hamilton product (i.e (a,u) x (b,v)= (ab-u.v, av+bu+u wedge v), the quaternion product), where indded (0, u) has an inverse if u is not the null vector... > > Bob Kolker > >>
From: Eric Gisse on 24 Apr 2007 01:32
On Apr 23, 7:43 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message > > news:BweXh.12286$n_.8438(a)attbi_s21... > > > > > Ka-In Yen wrote: > >> On Apr 23, 9:41 pm, Bob Kolker <nowh...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >>> Ka-In Yen wrote: > > >>>> Vector division can help we to calculate the components > >>>> of vector. For example, we put a brick on a sloping surface. > >>>> The mass of the brick is M, and the contacting area between > >>>> the brick and the sloping surface is A. Then we have > >>>> F=Mg (where g is the acceleration due to gravity.) > >>>> pressure p= F/A = |F|cos(theta)/|A| > >>> Which is a scalar, not a vector. > > >> Dear Bob Kolker, > > >> Thank you for your comment. Pressure(p) is a scalar. > >> Force and area are vectors. > > > As I have shown you before, Ka-In Yen, area is not a vector quantity. > > Not that I've been following the thread, but maybe what is being referred to > is the normal vector for the planar surface? He uses it as supporting evidence that area is a vector, despite not being any kind of support for his argument in any way. Follow the thread in Google - it goes back to November of 2005. He uses the same idiotic arguments, same pidgin notation that nobody but him can understand, and arrives at the same idiotic conclusion. |